What is with all the doom and gloom?

[PortyBeach]

3 hours ago, Sherbet said:

I've put you on ignore

C’mon lads - there’s unnecessary sarcasm here. We should respect everyone’s opinion.

 I think “Sherbet” makes a reasonable point. I said in another post I felt Hibs’ attacks were more incisive than ours. “Sherbet” put it another way: he suggests our “Build up play is far too slow”. 
You might not agree, which is fine. But let’s attack someone’s argument with a reasoned counter. Attacking the individual isn’t how this forum should operate. 

[Guest ToqueJambo]

I'm guessing it's the same people looking for negatives again? Can't be bothered with them anymore. With each game, they look more and more ridiculous.

 

That was a cracking derby - a very rare one where actual football was played for almost the entire game - between two in form teams. Great start to the season and as an almost completely new side, we are more likely than Hibs to get better. We have also had the hardest start of any of the teams at the top.

 

Just need to finish better and sort out some better attacking from the WBs, or sign a more attacking WB. Both WBs are good defensively but need to switch into winger-mode more often.

 

Beni and Woodburn were fantastic - a level above this league. Special mention for Cochrane - very solid in every game considering he's still a very young player. He certainly looked much better than Doig. Neilson due some credit for adapting to Hibs surprise new shape for the game and keeping Boyle pretty quiet for him. As long as we restrict teams to potshots for most of the game, with CG in goal we should be good. Defensively we are looking so much better. Genuine progress being made in all aspects of the team - night and day from our last season and a half in the Premiership.

Edited September 13, 2021 by ToqueJambo

[wavydavy]

5 hours ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

The bookies get it wrong every week otherwise we’d all be millionaires on the fixed odds by just backing the favourites!

 

You can tell I don't bet.

[Rocky jamboa]

46 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

Just need to finish better and sort out some better attacking from the WBs, or sign a more attacking WB. Both WBs are good defensively but need to switch into winger-mode more often.

You've said "I'm guessing it's the same people looking for negatives again" but then you've pulled out some negatives yourself in your next paragraph! 

 

You're always so defensive when someone criticises the club/robbie/budge etc, however, most people are on the whole positive at the moment. 

 

I'm happy with the results and the position we're in. However, there's no issue in debating around formations, selections, tactics etc. It's a fan forum for god sake. If "you can't be bothered with them anymore", maybe stop coming on as that's what fan forums do. It's all healthy discussions and everyone is entitled to their opinion. 

[Guest ToqueJambo]

1 hour ago, Paulp74 said:

You've said "I'm guessing it's the same people looking for negatives again" but then you've pulled out some negatives yourself in your next paragraph! 

 

You're always so defensive when someone criticises the club/robbie/budge etc, however, most people are on the whole positive at the moment. 

 

I'm happy with the results and the position we're in. However, there's no issue in debating around formations, selections, tactics etc. It's a fan forum for god sake. If "you can't be bothered with them anymore", maybe stop coming on as that's what fan forums do. It's all healthy discussions and everyone is entitled to their opinion. 

 

The team can obviously always be improved. That's very different from the months and months of out and out abuse and, as whoever started the thread said doom and gloom.

[McCrae]

On 13/09/2021 at 09:56, colinmaroon said:

 

So far off the mark!

 

He's slagged for not starting the way we finished in final and slagged for not knowing how to positively change a game at the same time.

 

It does not compute.

 

 

 

Maybe you are highlighting the problem... RN doesn't get it right on a consistent basis.

[colinmaroon]

1 hour ago, McCrae said:

 

Maybe you are highlighting the problem... RN doesn't get it right on a consistent basis.

 

I was not making a case for Bob  just pointing out the post I quoted was self-contradictory.

 

 

[PortyBeach]

On 13/09/2021 at 14:13, amadjambo said:

I didn’t think we played defensively yesterday either. But we never got enough bodies into the box, and lost count of the number of times our play ground to a halt in the final third. Apart from the last 5-10 mins we never looked like losing, but also never really looked like scoring for most of the game. 
 

 

I think that’s a good summary. Lack of a cutting edge is a problem for us. Let’s see how the new signings work out. I’m keen to see how Woodburn complements Boyce, for example. 

[frankblack]

8 minutes ago, PortyBeach said:

I think that’s a good summary. Lack of a cutting edge is a problem for us. Let’s see how the new signings work out. I’m keen to see how Woodburn complements Boyce, for example. 

 

Does that exclude all the shots on target saved by their keeper such as GMS and/or the near misses?

 

We had the chances to win it.

[GinRummy]

Shots on target is a terrible way to judge how a team attacks. 

[frankblack]

4 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

Shots on target is a terrible way to judge how a team attacks. 

 

The criticism above is vague and spurious, and not supported by the statistics of the match.

[GinRummy]

4 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

The criticism above is vague and spurious, and not supported by the statistics of the match.

Wasn’t aimed at youth particular, just getting involved in the discussion. We created more than enough to win. I’ve said previously the midfield doesn’t do enough to help the attack, partly due to the wing backs. We played well on Sunday but not quite there yet in an attacking sense. We could get even better. 
 

One of our best chances was when Kingsley put a poor effort towards goal and Nisbet cleared it, another one was a header from Halkett that he couldn’t keep down and the worldy attempt by Woodburn. Stats are just used to prove an argument. They rarely tell the right story. 

[frankblack]

2 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

Wasn’t aimed at youth particular, just getting involved in the discussion. We created more than enough to win. I’ve said previously the midfield doesn’t do enough to help the attack, partly due to the wing backs. We played well on Sunday but not quite there yet in an attacking sense. We could get even better. 
 

One of our best chances was when Kingsley put a poor effort towards goal and Nisbet cleared it, another one was a header from Halkett that he couldn’t keep down and the worldy attempt by Woodburn. Stats are just used to prove an argument. They rarely tell the right story. 

 

I wouldn't say those were anything like our best chances on Sunday.  Sure, there is room for improvement with wing backs, but those pretending we didn't create enough clear cut chances to win are showing their agenda.

[GinRummy]

6 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

I wouldn't say those were anything like our best chances on Sunday.  Sure, there is room for improvement with wing backs, but those pretending we didn't create enough clear cut chances to win are showing their agenda.

I didn’t word that too well. The Kingsley one was the best chance of the game, the others were just chances that aren’t included in shots on target stats. 
 

Agree, we created more than enough to win it. It’s nonsense to suggest otherwise. 

[PortyBeach]

4 hours ago, frankblack said:

 

Does that exclude all the shots on target saved by their keeper such as GMS and/or the near misses?

 

We had the chances to win it.

 

4 hours ago, frankblack said:

 

Does that exclude all the shots on target saved by their keeper such as GMS and/or the near misses?

 

We had the chances to win it.

As pointed out elsewhere, “shots on target” isn’t necessarily a good barometer of a team’s attacking prowess. Maybe just as well in terms of your argument: the online BBC report says Hearts had 16 shots at goal with only 4 on target. Hibs had 6 attempts on target, apparently.
You’re correct in saying we had the chances to win that match.

My point in agreeing with the previous poster was/is that lack of a cutting edge means we’re just not converting chances into what counts: goals.

[frankblack]

46 minutes ago, PortyBeach said:

 

As pointed out elsewhere, “shots on target” isn’t necessarily a good barometer of a team’s attacking prowess. Maybe just as well in terms of your argument: the online BBC report says Hearts had 16 shots at goal with only 4 on target. Hibs had 6 attempts on target, apparently.
You’re correct in saying we had the chances to win that match.

My point in agreeing with the previous poster was/is that lack of a cutting edge means we’re just not converting chances into what counts: goals.

 

Yes, but one thing that a lot of the posters struggle to grasp is that despite their attempts to paint all our opponents as target practice, they haven't a clue about football.

 

Sunday was a close game against an evenly matched rival, which might come as a shock to the hard of thinking.

 

These same posters were doing their nut about having no shots against Arbroath away earlier this year, and refuse to accept there is clear improvement.  We have a lot of new players to get up to speed and match fitness and should continue to improve.

[PortyBeach]

3 hours ago, frankblack said:

 

Yes, but one thing that a lot of the posters struggle to grasp is that despite their attempts to paint all our opponents as target practice, they haven't a clue about football.

 

Sunday was a close game against an evenly matched rival, which might come as a shock to the hard of thinking.

 

These same posters were doing their nut about having no shots against Arbroath away earlier this year, and refuse to accept there is clear improvement.  We have a lot of new players to get up to speed and match fitness and should continue to improve.

Does criticism of aspects of current performances necessarily equate to a refusal to accept we’ve improved of late? 
Surely even an improved team can still have flaws that fans are entitled to bemoan? Criticism can still be constructive, can’t it?

 

[frankblack]

1 hour ago, PortyBeach said:

Does criticism of aspects of current performances necessarily equate to a refusal to accept we’ve improved of late? 
Surely even an improved team can still have flaws that fans are entitled to bemoan? Criticism can still be constructive, can’t it?

 

 

That isn't what I'm saying at all.  Just fed up of endless negative pish being posted by the same simpletons.

[PortyBeach]

29 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

That isn't what I'm saying at all.  Just fed up of endless negative pish being posted by the same simpletons.

Fair enough, but why not just deconstruct their “pish”?
In other words, attack their argument, not them as individuals.

If they’re merely “simpletons” that should be relatively easy. But remember that these individuals probably love HMFC just as much as you obviously do.